Jump to content



Photo

What is the production model for this if its successful?


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Hook Innsmouth

Hook Innsmouth

    Member

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 15 December 2008 - 11:30 PM

Hello, I'm new here so I'm sorry if this has been covered in depth already.  While not new to Talisman or Fury of Dracula (I played the GW versions as a kid and still own them), I am relatively new to all things FFG - so far I love what I've seen (I now own a copy of FFG Talisman and have the Arkham Horror games up to Dunwich Horror).  I was wondering, if Talisman and Reaper are successful, is the basic production model going to be similar to that of Arkham Horror?  What I mean by that is, with Arkham horror you get a board box set, then you get a card expansion followed by a board box set again, enother card expansion, board box set and card expansion again (repeat formula).  So will we be seeing a Talisman City expansion for example (with additional board components) hereafter with a similar expansion production model if the game does enormously well?



#2 Zadok13

Zadok13

    Member

  • Members
  • 43 posts

Posted 15 December 2008 - 11:56 PM

I really hope thats how they approach Talisman.  Games like this really live and die by their expansions, which is why I was so thrilled that FFG planned to release an expansion shortly after their version of the game hit the stores.  So that is truly a good sign.  Will it keep up?  Knowing their record I believe it will.  Talisman has a pretty big fan base and I think this new version will pick up a bunch of new players.  Heck this will be my first Talisman game and I am excited.



#3 S.A.Harris

S.A.Harris

    Member

  • Members
  • 69 posts

Posted 16 December 2008 - 02:07 AM

 So far FF has been pretty successful in the development and production area with board games. After watching Descent and Arkham Horror do so well, I would assume that they will be publishing expansions for the revised 4th ed. of Talisman.

That being said, I am not sure that it will be card, board, card, board, etc. There may well be less of a pattern to the Talisman expansions, because it is a slightly different type of game with a HUGE fan base.

IF the team responsible were reading this here is what I would suggest.

1. Use the resources from 2nd and 3rd ed. and their impact on those versions as a guide to development.

2. Please give us an occasional larger expansion with an additional board (ie. Dungeon, City, Forest, etc.).

3. Additional character packs with minis would  be greatly appreciated, even if they are mixed in the box with other expansions.

4. Please reference the additional characters that were published in White Dwarf (Master Characters, etc.)

I know that all of my friends who have ordered the FF revised version have complained that the first expansion is not a board expansion, however I understand that rushing a larger expansion out the door on the heels of revising an entire version of a game is a lot to ask, so in a few months I hope we will see a larger expansion.

Just my $.02

 



#4 Jack Hooligan

Jack Hooligan

    Member

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 16 December 2008 - 02:28 AM

I would caution going the route of AH. I know several AH players who are starting to feel bloat and that they are getting diminishing returns on their game.

From listening ot their experience, and playing a few games of AH, I like the way FFG has structured the Reaper expansion for Talisman. Some new options, a few new characters, some new cards, etc. It's done in a small, affordable package that doesn't significantly add time or complexity of the game. This is the way I'd like to see them continue.

Adding big $40-$60 expansions, generally aren't worth the money for essentially playing the same game but with more bells and whistles. I'd be more likely to simply buy a different game at that price.

FFG did right by their remakes of FoD and WK, with no or one expansion, and I understand Talisman's legacy of expansions, I'd just pause before sending out big box expansions and going overboard.



#5 Gentlegamer

Gentlegamer

    Member

  • Members
  • 67 posts

Posted 16 December 2008 - 05:55 AM

I don't think it would be a good idea to add board expansions for the current Talisman because of how (unnecessarily) large the standard board already is. I already feel a pinch on table space as is.

Maybe an expansion could have a smaller replacement board. Not likely, though.



#6 S.A.Harris

S.A.Harris

    Member

  • Members
  • 69 posts

Posted 16 December 2008 - 07:55 AM

Jack Hooligan said:

Adding big $40-$60 expansions, generally aren't worth the money for essentially playing the same game but with more bells and whistles. I'd be more likely to simply buy a different game at that price.

FFG did right by their remakes of FoD and WK, with no or one expansion, and I understand Talisman's legacy of expansions, I'd just pause before sending out big box expansions and going overboard.

I agree that not all gamers  are going to want to spend $40-60 on an expansion vs. buying a new game to add to their collection. I also agree that FF did the perfect thing in regards to FoD and WK. Both of those games were originally "one-off" games that had no expansions, nor do they really need them. Talisman has a rich history and variety of expansions. 

From additional characters and adventure cards to boards and new rules, the expansions for Talisman were always "optional" and were not necessary to play the game (just like Arkham Horror expansions now). If anyone doubts that fact - remember Timescape?

If someone at FF is listening, I would suggest that for every 3-4 small expansions they give us a large expansion.

**By small I mean something in the $15-25 range with a few (3-6) minis/new characters, cards or tokens and some optional rules or clarifications on previously published rules.

**By large expansion I mean something in the $29-49 range which includes (6-10) minis/new characters, cards and a board expansion with some additional mechanics that deal with the theme of the expansion or new board.

In response to Gentlegamers comment on board size and play area:

I know that some gamers have more space than others (I have 2 6ft folding tables pushed together) and I understand that the size of the new board is about 30% larger then the old 2nd ed. board, so board expansions would need to be smaller. However, I think if they keep the size and number of board expansions down (2-3 max) then the space issue could be avoided while still giving gamers the options.

Also, part of the original interest in this game back in 1983 and 84 was the combination of board and RPG game mechanics which brought us something new. I think that there are lots of ways to expand the game without board expansions if FF were so inclined to go that route. They could also move away from the add on board and towards a region overlay type of board expansion, just a thought.

Every fan is going to have their own ideas about this, but I just think it would be terrible to miss an opportunity for FF - the best board game manufacturer IMO - to produce what may be the final and most complete chapter in the Talisman game history. If they reward the fans with what they have wanted for 20+ years, then FF will get rewarded with high profits to develop new games in the future or make expansions for the ones we already love.

Thanks for listening

 



#7 HallowKnight

HallowKnight

    Member

  • Members
  • 83 posts

Posted 16 December 2008 - 08:05 AM

I am very sure that we will be getting a mix.

Cards, and characters, in the reaper expansion.

Where further expansion down the line will add extra boards.

I think we will be seeing a bit of both.



#8 Jack Hooligan

Jack Hooligan

    Member

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 17 December 2008 - 01:13 AM

I'm also a bit leery that the same company (FFG) is producing:

WoW: the boardgame

Wow: the Adventure game

Runebound

Talisman

(soon to be) Adventures in Middle Earth

 

5 fantasy adventure games, all with expansions. Seems a bit much. Personally, as a Talisman fan, I'd rather they drop the rest and any good ideas they have for the others the implement in Talisman, so we have one outstanding game with lots of neat ideas. But hey, FFG seems to know what they're doing...



#9 JCHendee

JCHendee

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,811 posts

Posted 17 December 2008 - 03:50 AM

Jack, the games you cite are all at differing positions on the range between pure boardgame and pure RPG. Thought many fans plany more than one, they all have different appeal (outside of WOW being a media tie in). Talisman is the one that probably (?) leans the farthest to the boardgame end of the range, so losing the others would eliminate choices for those wishing to leaning toward RPG. That's not a good choice business wise on multiple levels... and it sends a bad signal to players of differing interest along the range. 

I've looked at Runebound, and been curious; the WOW games less so. And I've met players of Talisman who differ on those as well... but we all play Talisman and other games just the same.  And I think FFG is doing okay so far on keeping up on all of them. Some improvement is needed, but nothing is ever perfect.



#10 Hook Innsmouth

Hook Innsmouth

    Member

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 17 December 2008 - 06:02 AM

Jack Hooligan said:

I would caution going the route of AH. I know several AH players who are starting to feel bloat and that they are getting diminishing returns on their game.

Those player's do however have the option to not buy an expansion and FFG do publish the rules to these expansions so there's no real caveat emptor here as I see it.  The very fact that there are so many expansions is surely more a measure of its success than folly on the publishers part



#11 Hook Innsmouth

Hook Innsmouth

    Member

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 17 December 2008 - 06:05 AM

Jack Hooligan said:

(soon to be) Adventures in Middle Earth

Are there any articles about this game anywhere? As I for one would certainly like to read more about it.  Can anyone provide links?






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS